Standing Committee B

[Mr. John McWilliam in the Chair]

Proceeds of Crime Bill

Clause 433 - Tax

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) rose—

John McWilliam: May I point out to the Committee that the clause is incredibly narrow?

Dominic Grieve: Indeed, Mr. McWilliam. I was simply going to ask whether the clause is necessary. It is extremely oddly worded. It is headed, ''Tax'', and says:
Schedule 7 contains provisions about tax.
 I do not understand why clause 433 has to tell us that.

Bob Ainsworth: I understand that that is necessary because there cannot be a schedule without a clause to introduce it. Given the contents of the schedule, the clause could hardly be shorter, and I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman could object to it.

Dominic Grieve: I was not objecting to the clause itself. It is so short that I thought I should say something about it before we move on to other matters.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 433 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Tax

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 650, in page 267, line 12, leave out from '203' to end of line 15 on page 269 and insert—
'(d) an interim receiver appointed under section 251; 
 (e) an interim administrator appointed under section 259. 
 Part 2 
 Provisions relating to Part 5 
 Introductory 
 2 (1) The vesting of property in the trustee for civil recovery or any other person by a recovery order is referred to as a Part 5 transfer. 
 (2) The person who holds the property immediately before the vesting is referred to as the transferor; and the person in whom the property is vested is referred to as the transferee. 
 (3) Any amount paid in respect of the transfer by the trustee for civil recovery, or another, to a person who holds the property immediately before the vesting is referred to (in relation to that person) as a compensating payment. 
 (4) If the recovery order provides for the creation of any interest in favour of a person who holds the property immediately before the vesting, he is to be treated instead as receiving (in addition to any payment referred to in sub-paragraph (3)) a compensating payment of an amount equal to the value of the interest. 
 (5) Where the property belongs to joint tenants immediately before the vesting and a compensating payment is made to one or 
more (but not both or all) of the joint tenants, this Part has effect separately in relation to each joint tenant. 
 (6) Expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in Part 5 of this Act. 
 (7) ''The Taxes Act 1988'' means the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1), and ''the Allowances Act 2001'' means the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (c. 2). 
 (8) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part. 
 Capital Gains Tax 
 3 (1) If a gain attributable to a Part 5 transfer accrues to the transferor, it is not a chargeable gain. 
 (2) But if a compensating payment is made to the transferor— 
 (a) sub-paragraph (1) does not apply, and 
 (b) the consideration for the transfer is the amount of the compensating payment. 
 (3) If a gain attributable to the forfeiture under section 297 of property consisting of 
 (a) notes or coins in any currency other than sterling, 
 (b) anything mentioned in section 288(6)(b) to (d), if expressed in any currency other than sterling, or 
 (c) bearer bonds or bearer shares, 
 accrues to the person who holds the property immediately before the forfeiture, it is not a chargeable gain. 
 (4) This paragraph has effect as if it were included in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (c.12). 
 Income Tax and Corporation Tax 
 Accrued income scheme 
 4 If a Part 5 transfer is a transfer of securities within the meaning of sections 711 to 728 of the Taxes Act 1988 (transfers with or without accrued interest), sections 713(2) and (3) and 716 of that Act do not apply to the transfer. 
 Discounted securities 
 5 In the case of a Part 5 transfer of property consisting of a relevant discounted security (within the meaning of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996 (c.8)), it is not to be treated as a transfer for the purposes of that Schedule. 
 Rights to receive amounts stated in certificates of deposit etc. 
 6 In the case of a Part 5 transfer of property consisting of a right to which section 56(2) of the Taxes Act 1988 applies, or a right mentioned in section 56A(1) of that Act (rights stated in certificates of deposit etc.), it is not to be treated as a disposal of the right for the purposes of section 56(2) of that Act. 
 Non-qualifying offshore funds 
 7 In the case of a Part 5 transfer of property consisting of an asset mentioned in section 757(1)(a) or (b) of the Taxes Act 1988 (interests in non-qualifying offshore funds etc.), it is not to be treated as a disposal for the purposes of that section. 
 Futures and options 
 8 In the case of a Part 5 transfer of property consisting of futures or options (within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Schedule 5AA to the Taxes Act 1988), it is not to be treated as a disposal of the futures or options for the purposes of that Schedule. 
 Loan relationships 
 9 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if, apart from this paragraph, a Part 5 transfer would be a related transaction for the purposes of section 84 of the Finance Act 1996 (c.8) (debits and credits brought into account for the purpose of taxing loan relationships under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of that Act). 
 (2) The Part 5 transfer is to be disregarded for the purposes of that Chapter, except for the purpose of identifying any person in whose case any debit or credit not relating to the transaction is to be brought into account. 
 Exception from paragraphs 4 to 9 
 10 Paragraphs 4 to 9 do not apply if a compensating payment is made to the transferor. 
 Trading stock 
 11 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies, in the case of a Part 5 transfer of property consisting of the trading stock of a trade, for the purpose of computing any profits of the trade for tax purposes. 
 (2) If, because of the transfer, the trading stock is to be treated for that purpose as if it had been sold in the course of the trade, the amount realised on the sale is to be treated for that purpose as equal to its acquisition cost. 
 (3) Sub-paragraph (2) has effect in spite of anything in section 100 of the Taxes Act 1988 (valuation of trading stock at discontinuance). 
 (4) In this paragraph, trading stock and trade have the same meaning as in that section. 
 Capital Allowances 
 Plant and machinery 
 12 (1) If there is a Part 5 transfer of plant or machinery, Part 2 of the Allowances Act 2001 is to have effect as if a transferor who has incurred qualifying expenditure were required to bring the disposal value of the plant or machinery into account in accordance with section 61 of that Act for the chargeable period in which the transfer occurs. 
 (2) But the Part 5 transfer is not to be treated as a disposal event for the purposes of Part 2 of that Act other than by virtue of sub-paragraph (1). 
 13 (1) If a compensating payment is made to the transferor, the disposal value to be brought into account is the amount of the payment 
 (2) Otherwise, the disposal value to be brought into account is the amount which would give rise neither to a balancing allowance nor to a balancing charge. 
 14 (1) Paragraph 13(2) does not apply if the qualifying expenditure has been allocated to the main pool or a class pool. 
 (2) Instead, the disposal value to be brought into account is the notional written-down value of the qualifying expenditure incurred by the transferor on the provision of the plant or machinery. 
 (3) The notional written-down value is— 
 QE–A 
 where— 
 QE is the qualifying expenditure incurred by the transferor on the provision of the plant or machinery, 
 A is the total of all allowances which could have been made to the transferor in respect of the expenditure if— 
 (a) that expenditure had been the only expenditure that had ever been taken into account in determining his available qualifying expenditure, and 
 (b) all allowances had been made in full. 
 (4) But if— 
 (a) the Part 5 transfer of the plant or machinery occurs in the same chargeable period as that in which the qualifying expenditure is incurred, and 
 (b) a first-year allowance is made in respect of an amount of the expenditure, 
 the disposal value to be brought into account is that which is equal to the balance left after deducting the first year allowance. 
 15 (1) Paragraph 13 does not apply if— 
 (a) a qualifying activity is carried on in partnership, 
 (b) the Part 5 transfer is a transfer of plant or machinery which is partnership property, and 
 (c) compensating payments are made to one or more, but not both or all, of the partners. 
 (2) Instead, the disposal value to be brought into account is the sum of— 
 (a) any compensating payments made to any of the partners, and 
 (b) in the case of each partner to whom a compensating payment has not been made, his share of the tax-neutral amount. 
 (3) A partner's share of the tax-neutral amount is to be determined according to the profit-sharing arrangements for the twelve months ending immediately before the date of the Part 5 transfer. 
 16 (1) Paragraph 13 does not apply if— 
 (a) a qualifying activity is carried on in partnership, 
 (b) the Part 5 transfer is a transfer of plant or machinery which is not partnership property but is owned by two or more of the partners (''the owners''), 
 (c) the plant or machinery is used for the purposes of the qualifying activity, and 
 (d) compensating payments are made to one or more, but not both or all, of the owners. 
 (2) Instead, the disposal value to be brought into account is the sum of— 
 (a) any compensating payments made to any of the owners, and 
 (b) in the case of each owner to whom a compensating payment has not been made, his share of the tax-neutral amount. 
 (3) An owner's share of the tax-neutral amount is to be determined in proportion to the value of his interest in the plant or machinery. 
 17 (1) Paragraphs 12 to 16 have effect as if they were included in section 61 of the Allowances Act 2001. 
 (2) In paragraphs 15 and 16, the tax-neutral amount is the amount that would be brought into account as the disposal value under paragraph 13(2) or (as the case may be) 14 if the provision in question were not disapplied. 
 Industrial buildings 
 18 (1) If there is a Part 5 transfer of a relevant interest in an industrial building, Part 3 of the Allowances Act 2001 is to have effect as if the transfer were a balancing event within section 315(1) of that Act. 
 (2) But the Part 5 transfer is not to be treated as a balancing event for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act other than by virtue of sub-paragraph (1). 
 19 (1) If a compensating payment is made to the transferor, the proceeds from the balancing event are the amount of the payment. 
 (2) Otherwise— 
 (a) the proceeds from the balancing event are the amount which is equal to the residue of qualifying expenditure immediately before the transfer, and 
 (b) no balancing adjustment is to be made as a result of the event under section 319 of the Allowances Act 2001. 
 20 (1) Paragraph 19 does not apply to determine the proceeds from the balancing event if— 
 (a) the relevant interest in the industrial building is partnership property, and 
 (b) compensating payments are made to one or more, but not both or all, of the partners. 
 (2) Instead, the proceeds from the balancing event is the sum of— 
 (a) any compensating payments made to any of the partners, and 
 (b) in the case of each partner to whom a compensating payment has not been made, his share of the amount which is equal to the residue of qualifying expenditure immediately before the Part 5 transfer. 
 (3) A partner's share of that amount is to be determined according to the profit-sharing arrangements for the twelve months ending immediately before the date of the Part 5 transfer. 
 21 Paragraphs 18 to 20 have effect as if they were included in Part 3 of the Allowances Act 2001. 
 Flat conversion 
 22 (1) If there is a Part 5 transfer of a relevant interest in a flat, Part 4A of the Allowances Act 2001 is to have effect as if the transfer were a balancing event within section 393N of that Act. 
 (2) But the Part 5 transfer is not to be treated as a balancing event for the purposes of Part 4A of that Act other than by virtue of sub-paragraph (1). 
 23 (1) If a compensating payment is made to the transferor, the proceeds from the balancing event are the amount of the payment. 
 (2) Otherwise, the proceeds from the balancing event are the amount which is equal to the residue of qualifying expenditure immediately before the transfer. 
 24 (1) Paragraph 23 does not apply to determine the proceeds from the balancing event if— 
 (a) the relevant interest in the flat is partnership property, and 
 (b) compensating payments are made to one or more, but not both or all, of the partners. 
 (2) Instead, the proceeds from the balancing event are the sum of— 
 (a) any compensating payments made to any of the partners, and 
 (b) in the case of each partner to whom a compensating payment has not been made, his share of the amount which is equal to the residue of qualifying expenditure immediately before the transfer. 
 (3) A partner's share of that amount is to be determined according to the profit-sharing arrangements for the twelve months ending immediately before the date of the transfer. 
 25 Paragraphs 22 to 24 have effect as if they were included in Part 4A of the Allowances Act 2001. 
 Research and development 
 26 If there is a Part 5 transfer of an asset representing qualifying expenditure incurred by a person, the disposal value he is required to bring into account under section 443(1) of the Allowances Act 2001 for any chargeable period is to be determined as follows (and not in accordance with subsection (4) of that section). 
 27 (1) If a compensating payment is made to the transferor, the disposal value he is required to bring into account is the amount of the payment. 
 (2) Otherwise, the disposal value he is required to bring into account is nil. 
 28 (1) Paragraph 27 does not apply to determine the disposal value to be brought into account if— 
 (a) the asset is partnership property, and 
 (b) compensating payments are made to one or more, but not both or all, of the partners. 
 (2) Instead, the disposal value to be brought into account is equal to the sum of any compensating payments. 
 29 Paragraphs 26 to 28 have effect as if they were included in Part 6 of the Allowances Act 2001. 
 Employee etc. Share Schemes 
 Share options 
 30 Section 135(6) of the Taxes Act 1988 (gains by directors and employees) does not make any person chargeable to tax in respect of any gain realised by the trustee for civil recovery. 
 Conditional acquisition of shares 
 31 Section 140A(4) of the Taxes Act 1988 (disposal etc. of shares) does not make the transferor chargeable to income tax in respect of a Part 5 transfer of shares or an interest in shares. 
 Shares acquired at an undervalue 
 32 Section 162(5) of the Taxes Act 1988 (employee shareholdings) does not make the transferor chargeable to income tax in respect of a Part 5 transfer of shares. 
 Shares in dependent subsidiaries 
 33 Section 79 of the Finance Act 1988 (c.39) (charge on increase in value of shares) does not make the transferor chargeable to income tax in respect of a Part 5 transfer of shares or an interest in shares.'.
 The amendment would replace part 2 of schedule 7 with a new part 2 that contains revised provisions. It would not make a fundamental change to the underlying principle of that part of the schedule. The 
 amended version merely sets out the provisions in more detail and clarifies the operation of the schedule. 
 Part 2 of the schedule provides for the changes that are necessary to the tax rules to prevent a charge to income tax, capital gains tax or corporation tax arising on the transferor when assets vest in the trustee for civil recovery, or in another person, under part 5 of the Bill. 
 The provisions are, by nature, technical tax points. Generally, the provisions in part 2 of the schedule would apply when property vests in a trustee under civil recovery proceedings or is forfeited under clause 297. Without these special provisions, such vesting or forfeiture would count for capital gains purposes as disposal at market value, and any resulting gains would be chargeable. Income tax charges may also arise instead of a capital gains charge on the disposal of certain assets. 
 It would be inappropriate for tax to be charged in that way. It is intended that recovery or forfeiture will recover the full amount of the proceeds of unlawful conduct, and nothing would be left with the transferor to cover any extra charge as tax. However, if property owned in part by a third party is recovered or forfeited, normal tax rules will apply to any compensating payment made to them under clause 272.

David Wilshire: I have been away for a few moments trying to ensure that things were under control in another Committee Room, but I thought that I should return and see that everything was under control here. If by any chance in the few moments that I was away I missed the answer to the questions that I am about to ask, I apologise. I am sure that you will remind me that had I been here, I would have heard the answers, Mr. McWilliam.
 I have admitted many times that I am not a lawyer. I am not an accountant or a tax expert either, so it would be useful if some things were explained. Part 1 of the schedule says: 
Sections 75 and 77 . . . shall not apply.
 That is so that tax is not collectable, I assume, but I would be obliged if the Minister would say why those two sections should not apply. 
 I wish to consider paragraph 2(1)(b), in part 2. There have been other occasions when you have been in the Chair and references to the European Union and the euro have cropped up, Mr. McWilliam. I said this morning that I had got as far as the section—

John McWilliam: Order. May I assist the hon. Gentleman? He is referring to the schedule as it is, not the amendment.

David Wilshire: I was trying to save you a stand part debate, Mr. McWilliam, but if you would rather I kept my comments for later, I shall gladly do so.

John McWilliam: Actually, the hon. Gentleman has spared us both some difficulty. The amendment is so wide that I have no intention of allowing a stand part debate.

David Wilshire: In that case, Mr. McWilliam, I anticipated your thinking admirably, and I am impressed by my own judgment,
 I was saying—before I was politely interrupted—that for 38 sittings and a few minutes I have avoided every temptation to enter a EU or euro debate. Indeed, you have demonstrated in the past that if I tried to do so, you would not let me, Mr. McWilliam. I preface my question with those remarks because I am not trying to start such a debate, but I notice that paragraph 2(1)(b) states that 
property consisting of notes or coins in any currency—

John McWilliam: Order. Although the hon. Gentleman is referring to paragraph 2(1)(b)—

Bob Ainsworth: Where is paragraph 2(1)(b)?

John McWilliam: In the original schedule. The hon. Gentleman is referring to paragraph 2(1)(b), but the amendment would take that out.

David Wilshire: Exactly.

John McWilliam: - Although it may be fair to refer to the original schedule in a stand part debate, referring to words that are to be removed from it is out of order now.

David Wilshire: Yes, I see that point, but although the amendment would take the provisions out, we may have to vote on that, and whether I vote to take them out or leave them in depends on my having the relevant information to enable me to make a judgment.

John McWilliam: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not read the amendment. The provisions reappear.

Bob Ainsworth: But not in paragraph 2(1)(b).

David Wilshire: I think that at this stage it is best to say that I give up on that one. I doubt whether I want to try your patience so early in the afternoon, Mr. McWilliam.
 I wish to make a general comment—perhaps one that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) would make, too, were he not still away licking his wounds from Scotland's defeat on Saturday afternoon. If I understood the Minister correctly, one of the reasons for the schedule, amended or not, is to leave money available to pay the tax bills of someone who has had the proceeds of his crime taken away. If that is what is being suggested, I find it quite surprising. 
 Property that is the proceeds of crime, whether it is cash, goods or anything else, should be confiscated. I think that the Committee is united in that belief. I am assuming that tax will not arise on the proceeds of crime, as I am not sure that the Inland Revenue is entitled to benefit from the proceeds of crime by taxing it. I find it extraordinary that the proceeds of crime could be used to pay a tax bill.

Nick Hawkins: I have waited for my hon. Friend to finish his second point, but I wanted to ask about his first point. The words that he was going to ask the Minister about in the original paragraph 2(1)(b) have reappeared in amendment No. 650, the Government's complicated replacement of new schedule 7. In the new part 2 of schedule 7 those words reappear in what—if the amendment is
 accepted—will be paragraph 3 (3)(b). Now that I have directed my hon. Friend on that matter, perhaps he can, while staying within the Chairman's ruling, return to his original point.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was ranting in my attempt to make that point, and I am not sure—even with his assistance—that I have the courage to return to it. I am sure that he can give a far better explanation of it than I could, so perhaps he will make a contribution later. I am grateful to him for trying to get me out of the hole into which I originally dug myself.
 It is important that the thinking behind the provision be explained. Are we saying that money that is the proceeds of crime can be retained to pay other tax bills? It would be more sensible to confiscate the proceeds of crime, and if a person has tax bills, he should find the money to pay them in a way that does not involve the proceeds of crime. The Minister is being soft in a way that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok would not approve of if he were present. I am being firm on his behalf, and I hope that the Minister will respond.

Nick Hawkins: In response to my hon. Friend's invitation, I am not sure that I will be able to alight—by osmosis, as it were—on his point about the original wording of paragraph 2(1)(b), which the amendment would replace with paragraph 3(3)(b).

John McWilliam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not do that. He was not present to hear my ruling, but those words reappear in the amendment in a different place.

Nick Hawkins: That is what I was referring to. I was present to hear your ruling, Mr. McWilliam, and in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I said that the words reappear in amendment No. 650 in paragraph 3(3)(b) of schedule 7 in its new form. I see that you are assenting to that, Mr. McWilliam, so I am on the right track.
 Some weeks ago, we discussed whether certain provisions needed to be added in respect of bearer bonds and bearer shares. I believe that earlier in our proceedings the Government tabled some amendments that dealt with currency other than sterling, and bearer bonds and bearer shares. No doubt the Minister will tell us whether schedule 7 had to be fully rewritten to make it fit logically with those earlier amendments. I suspect that that is the reason. 
 If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne correctly, he was worried about currency other than sterling. We want to hear a little more detail from the Minister—more than appears in proposed paragraph 3(3)(b) and (c). Will he say how currency other than sterling—or bearer bonds or bearer shares—will be used in practice?

David Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have been listening carefully, and now that he has explained what he thought I was trying to say, I am quite impressed with what I was saying.

Nick Hawkins: I will wait to hear the Minister's answer.

Bob Ainsworth: If the hon. Member for Spelthorne had any credibility with the Committee—I say that in a light-hearted way—he completely shot it through when he asked us to accept the idea that he had been into another Committee to see that things were in order, and had then returned to our proceedings to ensure that things were in order here. That is not the interpretation of his activities over our previous 38 sittings that many of my hon. Friends would have given—but perhaps that is unfair. When the hon. Gentleman told you that he was going to give up at this point, Mr. McWilliam, some Committee members might—very unfairly—have wished that he had given up a while ago, instead of waiting until the final sitting.

David Wilshire: Things are getting better as the afternoon wears on. I sometimes wonder whether I get things right, but to be told that I have not been doing things as Labour Committee members would like me to is the biggest compliment that has been paid to me in our 38 sittings so far.

Bob Ainsworth: We always try to please. I was amused by the thought of the hon. Gentleman keeping things in order.

Dominic Grieve: I hesitate to say this, but when the Minister was explaining the amendments, I thought that I detected that he did not understand what the schedule was about any more than I did, and that that was why he brought his remarks to a speedy conclusion. If that is the case, is it not a little dangerous for him to criticise my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he might have been capable of shedding a little light on the matter?
Mr. Wilshire rose—

John McWilliam: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention.

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, we must now try to prevent the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield from intervening. In the last sitting on this very long Bill, no one is going to get an admission from the Minister that he does not know what he is talking about—I wish to make it very clear to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that I am not going to do that.
 The substantive point that the hon. Member for Spelthorne lighted upon, after he gave up on his tussle with the Chair, was that he was worried that I was playing my usual role—of which I have often been accused by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok—of being soft, by allowing people to get away with reneging on a tax liability. 
 The schedule does not do that. The rewritten part of it deals with the tax liability that would accrue on property that had been subject to civil recovery. The hon. Member for Spelthorne missed the start of my contribution to the debate.

David Wilshire: That was probably the best bit.

Bob Ainsworth: When we had removed the entire proceeds of crime by the civil recovery process, it would be inappropriate for us to say, ''By the way, although we have taken all that away from you, a tax
 liability remains, which you must now pay.'' If that is being soft, then I am guilty.
 The hon. Gentleman is probably right that if my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok were present, he would be more than happy to inflict a double hit on the people concerned, not only by using civil recovery to take away from them 100 per cent. of the proceeds of their crime, but by charging them capital gains tax, income tax, inheritance tax and any other tax that he could think of. That is not the Government's policy. The schedule ensures that that will not happen, but I do not think that that is being soft. 
 I turn to how the schedule will work. As I thought I said in my introductory comments, our amendments will not make any substantive changes. We are merely spelling matters out in more detail. 
 I admit to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that we were under pressure to get the Bill ready. It is a long and complicated Bill, and it was necessary to rewrite it, tidy it up and make absolutely sure that the intentions were clear, and all the tax regulations that could otherwise be brought to bear in such circumstances were removed. 
 The main thrust of the schedule is designed to achieve tax neutrality in two ways. First, it turns off the tax charges that might otherwise arise on transferral or when assets have been forfeited or vested in a trustee for civil recovery. Secondly, it allows normal tax rules to apply when a payment has been made to an innocent third party for assets recovered by the trustee and effectively returned to their ownership. I hope that that is clear, and that the hon. Gentleman will agree to the schedule.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. If that is the aim of the schedule as amended, Opposition Members would not want to stand in the way of its being agreed to.
 I may have an opportunity to return briefly to this subject at the end of our proceedings this afternoon, but may I say now that as a piece of text, the amendment is almost unintelligible? I mean that kindly to those who drafted it. Even as a lawyer, I was none the wiser or better informed at the end of reading it than at the beginning. That highlights the merit of explanatory notes, which we do not receive when an amendment of such a size and volume comes before us. I may be able to comment further at the end of our proceedings, but we are having to take a lot on trust from the Minister. In the absence of a tax expert among Committee members, it is difficult to disentangle whether the amendment will achieve what the Minister says is its objective.

John McWilliam: Before I put the Question, it may be worth pointing out that I used to chair the Edinburgh tax commission.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 434 - Customs and Excise prosecutions

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 618, in page 252, line 14, after 'officer', insert
', unless the reason for his removal or discharge is connected with these proceedings.'.
 May I clear up a point that arose this morning, Mr. McWilliam, when your colleague, Mr. Gale, was in the Chair? Members may recall that the Minister of State suggested earlier that we wanted him to be abolished. For the avoidance of doubt, I must stress that it is the office that he holds that I want abolished. If it were up to me, the hon. Gentleman himself would be preserved for the nation. [Interruption.]

Nick Hawkins: I wonder whether Hansard has recorded the sotto voce observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that if the Minister of State were to be preserved he should be stuffed and mounted.

Alistair Carmichael: Neither of those are activities in which I would want to engage.
 The amendment, which was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), raises an interesting issue, which at the time of drafting was known only to him and to the Lord God Almighty—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spelthorne is obviously confusing one of those parties with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Now that I find myself before the Committee having to move the amendment, it is unfortunate that one of those two is not available, and the other is not returning my calls—hon. Members may make of that what they wish, according to their faith preferences. 
 The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes was trying to make when he drafted the amendment was that it would be undesirable for the officer who subsequently brought proceedings to be connected with the earlier removal or discharge of his colleague. I would be the first to admit that that is not what the amendment says.

Paul Stinchcombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Carmichael: If the hon. Member for Wellingborough can cast any light on this, I should be happy to give way.

Paul Stinchcombe: It strikes me that the amendment has the curious effect that if someone is being investigated by an officer who commences proceedings and he endeavours to bribe that officer so that he is discharged, no proceedings can be continued by any other customs officer. That seems rather perverse.

Alistair Carmichael: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has identified that my hon. Friend's amendment would have an effect; that was rather more than I could do when I first read it. Before I open up any more rifts between my Front-Bench colleagues and myself, I should be interested to hear what those briefing the Minister think about the amendment. If necessary I
 will make a further contribution, before I inevitably withdraw the amendment.

George Foulkes: I fear that we have made the dreadful mistake of treating the amendment seriously. We had to wait until our 39th sitting before a Member spoke on behalf of a colleague to move an amendment that he did not understand, the effect of which was not only opposite to the one intended but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough pointed out—malign. To quote my late good friend Gregor Mackenzie, whose phrase has now been adopted by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the introduction of the amendment by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) was ''less than convincing''.
 If the hon. Gentleman wants to abolish the position of Minister of State, he should think seriously about that. He has only been here for a few months. Perhaps when he begins better to understand the devolution settlement and what it means, he may see that there is an important job to be done. If I went into that in more detail I should be entirely out of order, Mr. McWilliam—so perhaps I will take him aside on another occasion, with my hon. Friend the Whip. Between us we will find one way or another of convincing him. 
 We oppose the amendment because it would be contrary to the interests of justice and of the public automatically to put an end to proceedings in a number of circumstances where an officer had been removed from a case for any reason, however legitimate, that was connected to the proceedings, but where the evidence was otherwise sufficient to secure a conviction for serious offences. Sometimes it may become apparent that witnesses or defendants had some remote connection with the case officer that was not apparent when the proceedings were brought. They could be a distant relative, a former school or university colleague—or, may I suggest to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, a member of the same rugby team. Although there would be no suggestion of the officer colluding or being involved with witnesses, defendants or offences, it might nevertheless be expedient to remove him from the case to avoid any such allegations being made. 
 That is the sensible response to an introduction of the amendment that was not sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has given a more effective response than I have, and that is an even more effective reason why the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland should withdraw the amendment.

Bob Ainsworth: With a good grace.

Dominic Grieve: Although there has been a great deal of community of view between us and the Liberal Democrats during our deliberations in Committee, I am unable to support the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on this occasion.

David Wilshire: I have an overwhelming need to be consistent, and during our proceedings I have felt it
 necessary to chide the Labour party from time to time. Until now, I have not felt the need to chide the Liberal Democrats, but consistency demands that we consider what is before us. The drift of what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said was that the amendment did not mean anything. Then—horror of horrors—we discovered that it does mean something. That was a nasty shock, but I suppose that we can draw our own conclusions about where it came from. We were told that it was malign and would wreck the intentions of this part of the Bill, so who are the wreckers now?

Alistair Carmichael: Despite that contribution by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, which almost persuaded me to press it to a Division, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 644, in page 252, line 36, leave out subsection (7).
 This is a probing amendment. The clause was interesting to read, and perhaps even more so when I read the explanatory notes. They explain how the powers will deal with customs and excise offences. It is well known that those offences usually apply throughout the United Kingdom, albeit that different procedures may sometimes apply north and south of the border. Subsection (7) states: 
This section does not apply to proceedings on indictment in Scotland.
 That is all very useful, but those of us who are not versed in Scots law then looked at the explanatory notes, only to find that they say: 
this section does not apply to proceedings on indictment in Scotland.

George Foulkes: There is consistency, anyway.

Dominic Grieve: An explanation by the Minister would be helpful. I hope that I am not straying into a clause stand part debate. There are other examples in the explanatory notes of our being given a titbit of information, but the detail being withheld. For instance, the notes say:
The provision reflects that in existing legislation, except that the range of offences covered has been slightly increased.
 When I read that, I smelt a rat. I therefore made complicated inquiries about comparisons between the old legislation and the Bill, to find out how the range has been increased. I shall come to that when we discuss clause stand part if the Minister cannot deal with it now. If the explanatory notes told us how such matters have been changed, time would be saved.

Alistair Carmichael: I am not persuaded that the amendment is appropriate, for the simple reason that the clause does not relate to Scotland. North of the border, criminal proceedings on indictment run in the name of Her Majesty's Advocate. There is no precedent for the commissioners of HM Customs and Excise or any other body to institute criminal proceedings in Scotland. At the risk of straying into the clause stand part debate, I must say that I would be interested to know why a named customs officer will institute some of the proceedings in Scotland. There is no good reason why officers of the procurator fiscal should not do that.

George Foulkes: The question that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked reminds me again of the late Gregor Mackenzie, when he was asked a question at Scottish Question Time that floored him completely. He did not know the answer, so he said, ''The hon. Gentleman has asked a very good question—but not as good as the one that I am going to ask when I get back to Dover house.'' The officials got what they deserved.
 However, I do have an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The clause deals with Customs and Excise prosecutions. In Scotland, all prosecutions on indictment run in the name of the Lord Advocate, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. That explains the inclusion of subsection (7), which clarifies the fact that in Scotland, in line with the present position, Customs and Excise officials cannot bring a prosecution on indictment. 
 However, there is a statutory provision for Customs and Excise officers to bring summary prosecutions in Scotland. That is set out in section 34(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995, which states: 
Summary proceedings for a specified offence may be instituted by order of the Commissioners and shall, if so instituted, be commenced in the name of an officer.
 I understand that that provision is rarely, if ever, used and that most summary prosecutions run in the name of the procurator fiscal. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will withdraw his amendment. The position is explicit and beyond any shadow of doubt.

Dominic Grieve: It was never my intention to sabotage the Bill or create a major constitutional crisis by deleting subsection (7). I wanted an explanation, and the Minister has provided it. I was waiting for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to tell me that the Minister was wrong about summary proceedings. However, as he did not, I must take it that the Minister is right, even if the provision is not usually used.

Alistair Carmichael: I would merely advise the hon. Gentleman that during my substantial experience of summary criminal proceedings in a number of jurisdictions, I have never known that section to be invoked. I would be interested to know whether it ever has been invoked.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: I repeat my previous request to be informed of the way in which the range of offences has been ''slightly increased'' in comparison with the previous legislation. Will the Minister identify the areas in which that has occurred, and tell us what the offences are?

David Wilshire: Questions will be asked at Dover house.

John McWilliam: Order. I heard that sedentary intervention, and I must correct the Minister and the rest of the Committee. I do not wish to take part in proceedings, but I must point out that the right hon. Gregor Mackenzie was the Minister of State for Industry when he made the remark that has been quoted, so he would not have referred to Dover house.

George Foulkes: I stand corrected—if not yet stuffed and mounted.

Nick Hawkins: Your point of order, Mr. McWilliam, allows me to ask the Minister whether the reason why he made that inadvertent slip could be related to the extraordinary publicity given to Dover house in this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph. I read with fascination about the amount of free time that the Secretary of State for Scotland has. I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats had anything to do with leaking that information, but Dover house must be in the Minister's mind for some reason.

John McWilliam: Order. I cannot see what the free time, or otherwise, of the Secretary of State for Scotland has to do with clause 434.

George Foulkes: But it has given me more time to read my notes, for which I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. McWilliam, and to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, whom I advise to not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, especially The Daily Telegraph.
 I turn to the question asked by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. The explanatory notes state—[Interruption.] I am finding my brief difficult to read. The Secretary of State might be receiving French lessons, but someone should take some writing lessons. The explanatory notes state that the range of offences for which Customs and Excise can prosecute has been slightly extended: the offence of aiding and abetting the commission of a listed offence is now included. 
 Clause 434 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 435 - Crown servants and regulators

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 645, in page 253, line 4, leave out subsection (3).

John McWilliam: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 646, in page 253, line 8, leave out subsection (4).

Dominic Grieve: The clause gives powers to the Secretary of State to provide that provisions apply to people who are in the public service of the Crown. That is an important provision and I support it, because such people could commit a money-laundering offence or prejudice investigations—although it would perhaps be surprising if that were to happen.
 However, subsection (3) states: 
The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that section 324 does not need to apply to persons who exercise functions—
(a) as or on behalf of supervisory authorities;
(b) as investigators.
 Clause 324 addresses failures to disclose in the regulated sector. 
 Clarification is needed about the reasons for providing that power for the Secretary of State. What category of person would he seek to exempt, and why? I understand why he might wish to exempt investigators. However, the Committee should be concerned about exemptions for supervisory authorities. It might be suggested that the rules will be laxer in respect of them than in respect of other organisations, because although a supervisory authority might have a good reason for not wishing to make a disclosure, it might also make a disclosure in the usual way.

Nick Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend's points. They are important, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them.
 I also wish the Minister to respond to a related point. The Government want to take a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in the future, but would it not be simpler to declare in the Bill that the provisions will apply to Crown servants from the date that the Bill comes into force? Why wait until another stage? Why introduce subsequent regulations? Given that Opposition Members accept that there might be reasons why the provisions should cover Crown servants, why should they not cover them ab initio? 
 It makes me uncomfortable when Secretaries of State of any Government are given wide powers to do things at a later date—particularly if those regulations might be introduced by the negative resolution procedure. It would surely be better to specify in the Bill either that the regulations will apply from the beginning, or that they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so that the House can debate their exact terms properly.

David Wilshire: The role of Crown servants is really a stand part issue, to which I should like to return to as a separate debate. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made are important and should be considered thoroughly. If I understand the explanatory notes correctly, we are being told that we can exclude the supervisory authorities because other legislation covers their conduct and makes it possible to take action against them.

John McWilliam: May I help the hon. Gentleman? I am re-reading the amendments, and between them they cover the clause. Debating the amendments will cover the clause, so any Member who wants to make a stand part point must do so in the context of the amendments.

David Wilshire: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam. In that case I shall almost certainly return to the other point that I mentioned when I have finished this one, which relates directly to subsection (3).
 The argument used in the explanatory notes is that we do not need the power because the Money Laundering Regulations 1993 deal with the matter effectively. However, I am not persuaded that that is an effective argument that the Bill should not cover them. We have talked about making absolutely sure that we close every possible loophole, and do 
 everything possible to ensure that the intentions behind the Bill are put into effect. A regulator or supervisor might find a reason why the Money Laundering Regulations should not apply, or, if they did, why they did not cover the conduct for which the person is being criticised, or for which someone was contemplating taking action against the supervisor. 
 I cannot believe that applying the provisions would negate the opportunity to refer to the 1993 regulations if that were the preferred route. However, if that were to fail, and the Bill could cover for the failure of that route, action could be taken against people who had broken the law—yet we have excluded the possibility of using the Bill to deal with such matters. 
 Unless the Minister can persuade me that under the amendment action could not be taken, or that it would harm the authorities' ability to take action under the regulations, I believe that the amendment is right and that we should have the fail-safe mechanism of using the powers as well as, or instead of, the 1993 regulations. I therefore believe that this is more than a probing amendment. It is sensible, and unless it harms other routes, or the Minister can give me a reason for doing so, I cannot object to it. 
 My other point, which would have featured in a stand part debate, is that I am amazed to discover that Crown servants are not subject to the definition of criminal offences in exercising their duties as Crown servants. If that is the current state of play, perhaps I should have known that long ago. We are stating in this case that we should ensure that Crown servants can be proceeded against. Earlier, we debated order-making powers to extend legislation and to introduce new legislation. Perhaps this is an opportunity to introduce a provision to ensure that Crown servants are accountable under the law for everything that they do, not merely money laundering. Can we apply the laws that apply to the rest of us to Crown servants, too?

Bob Ainsworth: The order-making power in clause 435(3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to disapply the offence of failing to disclose that another person is engaged in money laundering under clause 324 to any supervisors in schedule 6. They include persons employed by the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England.
 The amendment has caused us to reconsider the rationale for clause 435(3) and (4). The provision is not new. It is also in section 36B(1) to (5) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and section 93G(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. There are also the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Crown Servants and Regulators etc.) Regulations 1994, which were statutory instrument No. 1757. Broadly, that regulation disapplied section 26B of the 1986 Act, which was inserted by the Criminal Justice Act 1993, from a list of supervisors. It was needed, and was used to place an obligation on the director of National Savings. The provision was disapplied in respect of appropriate people. 
 The principle underlying the present regulations is that there is already a separate requirement under 
 regulation 16 of the Money Laundering Regulations for supervisors to make disclosures to a constable. It was therefore appropriate that the offence of failing to report drug money laundering was not necessary. It was considered that it would be perverse to apply the offence to investigators who were also constables or persons authorised to undertake money-laundering investigations in the new law enforcement capacity. 
 The Money Laundering Regulations, which were amended last year, continue to place the same requirement on supervisors to report suspicions that another person is engaged in money laundering, so we can be satisfied that there is no loophole. It seems unlikely that a person falling within part 2 of schedule 6 who is acting in a supervisory capacity would be engaged in a business in the regulated sector, so clause 324 would not apply to such persons in any event. 
 That was a complicated run round all the existing legislation. In any event, there is some inconsistency in asking for reports to be made under regulation 16 of the Money Laundering Regulations and under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, but to exempt them under this clause by means of regulations. 
 As for investigators, where such officers know of or suspect money laundering, they may wish to act on that intelligence themselves, either through regulatory penalties or using their own prosecuting powers. In principle, however, the National Criminal Intelligence Service should still be apprised of such information, as it might be linked to other intelligence. 
 Having reconsidered the clause, I am not altogether convinced that there is a need to provide blanket immunity to law enforcement authorities in the way envisaged by the Bill. We are therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us an opportunity to reconsider the clause, which raises several questions. The best that we can do is to offer to have further discussions with the supervisory authorities and NCIS to see whether the provision still serves a useful purpose. I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment, because he has highlighted a potential difficulty in the Bill. However, in the light of my comments about reconsidering the blanket exemption, I now ask him to withdraw it.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Minister for his comments. I am glad that the matter has been highlighted and I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. When I first looked at the subsection, the thought that immediately came to mind was the old Latin tag, ''Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?''—who will guard the guards? On principle, I believe that exemptions are undesirable, although I am prepared to accept that there may be circumstances in which the situation would become absurd. I am glad that the matter will be considered further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 435 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 436 - References to financial investigators

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: When I looked at the terms of clause 436 I had a distinct feeling of déjà vu and thought back to the scripts of ''Yes, Minister'' and ''Yes, Prime Minister''. The wording appears, if not circular—a term that I have used about other parts of the Bill and for which I have been criticised by some Government Members—then certainly elliptical. It says:
The Secretary of State may by order provide that a specified reference in this Act to an accredited financial investigator is a reference to such an investigator who falls within a specified description . . . A description may be framed by reference to a grade designated by a specified person.
 If the Plain English campaign examined clause 436, I do not think that it would be terribly happy. I always support that campaign, particularly on one of its recommendations, which is that there should always be an index to a Bill, with numbered footnotes to enable one to see exactly where else terms such as ''specified person'' and ''specified reference'' are referred to. 
 The current drafting means that it is difficult, particularly in a Bill as bulky as this one, to find out where the terms are defined. I can understand that categories of people must sometimes be referred to by reference to a grade, so I am less critical of subsection (2). However, subsection (1) should have been more tightly drafted to make it clear, even to a relatively experienced reader of such legislation, exactly what is meant. The clause will have to be pored over by experts in firms of tax advisers, accountants and solicitors who advise those in financial services. As I have said before, I used to examine legislation that affected the financial services industry to see how it affected the companies that I advised or worked for, and Parliament should be obliged to ensure that legislation is made clearer. 
 I could not see how to table an amendment that would not be considered a wrecking amendment, so I thought that it would be better to debate the principle of the drafting in the clause stand part debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, as with his helpful response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield on the last group of amendments, he will re-examine this clause in the same way, and see whether the school examiner's comment, ''Could do better'' could be applied to it, too. There may be a better way of drafting it, which would make it clearer to both the casual and the experienced reader, because it is not clear as it stands.

David Wilshire: The Minister should address another issue before we decide whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. A few sittings ago, we debated the specific powers provided to the Inland Revenue with regard to Customs and Excise. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield tabled an amendment to the effect that the powers were sufficiently important to have to be exercised by someone of a senior grade. The amendment went on to suggest what grades were appropriate—a district tax inspector, or a collector
 within Customs and Excise. We believed that making provision for a senior person—

John McWilliam: Order. I recall that argument, as I was in the Chair at the time. We do not need to hear it again.

David Wilshire: I understand your point, Mr. McWilliam, but the issue is relevant because the exact opposite is proposed here, although the circumstances appear to be much the same, requiring someone senior to be available. We were told at the time that such a solution was not practical, could not be done and did not commend itself to the Government. Yet in clause 436 the Government are attempting to implement what they were not prepared to countenance when we suggested it earlier. What on earth is the difference? Why should we accept now the precise reverse of what the Minister argued earlier? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
 We should try to place on record what sort of grade is considered appropriate. The case is accepted in the notes on clauses, albeit in a rather elliptical or circular way. It is acknowledged that persons of senior standing should be involved, so we should know precisely which grades apply. What is the definition of ''senior'' and why specify one particular grade rather than another? The notes on clauses suggest that the simple designation of one grade may not be possible. Does the Minister intend one grade to apply in one department and a different one in others? What grade would he designate as appropriate for other departments? These are important issues, and they mark a reversal of the Minister's previous arguments. It is not enough to refer to a grade and leave it dangling in the air. In future, might we not find that the grade designated by the Minister is not high enough for the requisite work?

Bob Ainsworth: The grounds mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath are insufficient for withdrawing or reconsidering the proposal, though I accept some of his points. It can be difficult to understand the purposes behind the drafting. We are now referring back to accreditation systems that we first debated on clause 3—a long time ago. The provision may not be wholly clear, but I hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary.
 The hon. Member for Spelthorne is right to say that we debated the same issue earlier, but he will recall that we were talking about the Revenue, and he somewhat misrepresented my argument at that time. I felt that I had persuaded the Committee that the Revenue people themselves were the best to decide who should be designated as dealing with disclosures to and from the director. 
 The clause would enable the Secretary of State to specify by order the type of accredited financial investigators who may exercise restraint powers under part 2 or investigation powers under part 8. Such an order would be subject to the negative procedure. A system for the accreditation of financial investigators is, as I have said, provided under clause 3. The order-making power enables the Secretary of State to limit the use of restraint and investigation 
 powers to financial investigators employed or engaged by law enforcement authorities, or those employed or engaged in a law enforcement capacity by Government Departments. 
 It will be possible, in an order, to include investigators working in specified organisations or Departments, or investigators who are not below a specified grade. It would thus be possible to designate investigators who may act as senior appropriate officers for the purposes of making an application for a customer information order. We want to lift the standard of financial investigation. That is why, under clause 3, we gave the director of the agency the right and duty to train financial investigators, to accredit them when they reach a certain standard, and to see to it that they maintain that standard. We need to lift our game. 
 We do not want to give every trained accredited financial investigator access to the powers in part 8. We want to limit them to particular grades of people within appropriate organisations. We have to do that by order, unless we try, in primary legislation, to identify every appropriate department and guess those that might change their status. The order will have to say what level of individual in any organisation will be given access to the powers. Only an accredited financial investigator, trained and maintained under the system set up by the director and employed at a specific grade in that organisation, will be entitled to have access to the powers.

Mark Field: I appreciate the difficulties that are inevitable when setting up an institution. Such rules cannot, at this juncture, be set in stone. However, it would be interesting to have some guidance as to how frequently the Minister expects to make a revising order to specify which grades are entitled. We do not want the matter left in limbo for long. We also worry that there would be a significant number of investigators, and that bureaucracy would build up. How frequently does the Minister envisage coming back to Parliament to get a new order, or being asked at Home Office questions about how the provisions are working in practice, to ensure that bureaucracy is kept to an acceptable minimum?

John McWilliam: Order. That was a Tennyson's brook of an intervention. It was far too long.

Bob Ainsworth: I recall that we talked about the kind of organisations that would be given access to the powers, and about the levels of people who might be designated to use them, in an earlier sitting, but I do not recall at what length or depth. It is difficult for me to go back to that substantive argument. The provision merely gives the order-making power that allows us to make that designation. I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that we do not intend to allow access to the powers to be inappropriate or too widely drawn. That would be a cause for concern.
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says that the clause does not make easy reading, which I accept. Complicated legislation rarely does. However, the clause is necessary and has a purpose, no matter how circular, elliptical, rectangular or anything else it 
 appears to be, or how offensive it may be to the Plain English campaign.

Nick Hawkins: I understand that the clause is significant. The Minister considered the previous clause in his helpful response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. Would he be prepared also to consider this clause to see whether there is a clearer way of expressing it? I entirely accept his comment that it can have a purpose. While he considers the preceding clause, he might as well consider this one.

Bob Ainsworth: I cannot do that, as I told the hon. Gentleman—who briefly left the Room at the start of my reply to him. He is always the same: give him an inch and he tries to take a mile.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 436 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 437 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 438 - Amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: I have seen one or two clauses like this one, and I wonder why it is necessary. It is a statement of the obvious. I thought that the purpose of clauses was to provide legislation that the courts could use for recovering the proceeds of crime.

John McWilliam: Order. Did not the hon. Gentleman listen to the explanation of clause 433, which appears to have been exactly the same? He is out of order.

David Wilshire: With the greatest respect, Mr. McWilliam, I was trying to ensure that hon. Members next door were behaving themselves at that moment. I am sorry if that point was raised then. None the less, I would be grateful for an explanation.

John McWilliam: Order. The Committee has already had that explanation. Explanations cannot be repeated simply because people are out of the Room at the time.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 438 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 - Amendments

George Foulkes: I beg to move amendment No. 657, in page 270, line 15, after '88' insert ', 154'.

John McWilliam: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 658, 659, 661, 662, and 664 to 667.

George Foulkes: All the amendments make consequential amendments to existing legislation, principally to reflect the new provisions that are being introduced in part 3 as they affect Scotland. Parallel amendments have already been included in the schedule for England and Wales. With a little trepidation, I say that if hon. Members want a more detailed explanation of any of the amendments, I would be happy—I think that I shall say willing—to oblige.

Nick Hawkins: I did not manage to get the Minister to give way before he sat down so rapidly, but I suspect that he missed out the words ''If pressed'' that we know from past experience so often appear in ministerial briefs. He referred in an earlier debate to the fact that the brief was headed ''If pressed''. I am sure that this is such a case, and I therefore press him for an explanation.

David Wilshire: The issue requires some attention for the simple reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield put his finger on earlier. It is sometimes adequate for us to have notes on clauses, and the notes on schedule 8 are quite lengthy. As my hon. Friend pointed out, once we come to such amendments, there are no notes on them. I am prepared to admit that I have not been able to identify exactly what the detailed changes are—there are so many. It is a substantial rewrite. Why was the rewriting of so much of the schedule necessary? What are the amendments designed to achieve, and what presumable error in the original drafting do they put right?
 The Minister cannot be allowed to get away with moving so great a change to the Bill. Where it says, ''If pressed'', I too am pressing him.

George Foulkes: It does not say ''If pressed'', or I would have said it. I can understand that the hon. Member for Spelthorne does not hear things when he is outside the Room, but I said when he was here that all the amendments make consequential amendment to existing legislation to reflect the new provisions as they affect Scotland—principally the new provisions in part 3, which we have discussed at length.
 Parallel amendments have already been included in schedule 8 in respect of England and Wales. We have discussed the issue and agreed the principle. These are consequential amendments. We have passed them for England and Wales and now we are doing that for Scotland.

David Wilshire: I do not find that an adequate response. If the amendments are consequential, fine, but what has happened since the original drafting to make such amendments necessary? The need to change other legislation was known when the original Bill was written. At the first drafting, the consequential changes to the legislation were attempted. Something has happened subsequently to make these amendments to the original drafting necessary. All I am saying is, will the Minister tell us what has happened since the original drafting? The fact that we have had debates about other parts of the United Kingdom is fascinating, but it does not answer my question.

George Foulkes: I did explain. Nothing has happened other than that we have considered the Bill. The amendments are consequential amendments to existing legislation to reflect the Bill's new provisions in relation to Scotland. We have debated them in relation to England and Wales. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific question about any amendment, I am prepared to deal with that question on that particular amendment, or to deal with any specific amendment that may be puzzling him.

David Wilshire: It is the principle, not the detail, on which I cannot obtain an answer. The Minister said that the schedule, as originally drafted, was made necessary by the provisions requiring legislation to be changed. I accept that that is what the schedule does. I am trying to get to the bottom of what happened to the drafting of the original schedule, which does exactly what he said it would do, which is to make consequential changes to legislation. What has happened to render the schedule as originally drafted inadequate, so that it requires Government amendments?
 The Minister shakes his head as though nothing has happened. If nothing has happened to make the amendments necessary, why are they there? There has to be a reason for amendments to change the schedule, which was doing what he claimed it was. He has not addressed that question.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Member for Spelthorne has twice asked what has happened. The short answer to his question is that there have been 38 sittings of the Committee which have led to significant changes. As I understand it, these have now been reflected in the Bill in relation to Scotland. I am grateful, as we should all be, that they have been introduced in this way.
 Given that this is our last sitting, this might be an appropriate point in the proceedings to place on the record the gratitude that Committee members feel to the staff who have supported us throughout the past 39 sittings, particularly to the Clerks and the Ministers' officials. My experience is that they have been courteous and helpful.

Nick Hawkins: I entirely echo the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the support staff. We should also add the thanks of all members of the Committee to our three Chairmen who, without fail, have been good-humoured, relaxed and skilful in their chairmanship.

John McWilliam: I have a problem relating this to schedule 8.

Alistair Carmichael: There is no connection, but I thought that it was important to place those comments on the record.

George Foulkes: I agree, but there will be plenty of time later for such comments. However, I wish to say that officials from the Home Office, the Scottish Executive and the Crown Office have been very helpful.
 Far be it from me to advise the hon. Member for Spelthorne on which questions to ask. However, if he had asked why there are additional changes to the legislation at this stage, the answer would have been that the exercise is highly technical and complex, it necessitated a thorough trawl through relevant legislation, and it was not possible to complete that before introduction of the Bill. During the time that the Committee has been sitting, we have been able to complete the trawl and table additional amendments. They are all consequential amendments concerning how the provisions of the Bill affect Scotland, in particular, in relation to part 3.

David Wilshire: As it is the time for expressing gratitude, may I express gratitude to the Minister for pointing out the questions that I should have asked,
 and then answering them before I got around to asking them?
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 658, in page 270, line 16, after '2' insert ', 3'. 
 No. 659, in page 270, line 16, at end insert— 
'Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) 
 (1) In section 28L of the Immigration Act 1971, in paragraph (c) for the words ''33 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act 1995'' substitute ''397 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002''.'—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 647, in page 270, leave out lines 17 to 30.

John McWilliam: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 516.

Dominic Grieve: The amendment relates to the provisions in schedule 8 for amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The two are linked to achieve the same thing. Paragraph 5 of schedule 8 says:
In section 1 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (rehabilitated persons and spent convictions) after subsection (2A) insert—
''(2B) In subsection (2)(a) above the reference to a fine or other sum adjudged to be paid by or imposed on a conviction does not include a reference to an amount payable under a confiscation order made under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2001.''.
 That is to be further amended by a Government amendment to relate it to part 3 as well, which is about Scottish confiscation provisions. The same provision applies in Northern Ireland and, as spelled out in the explanatory notes, the purpose of the amendment is that a failure to pay a confiscation order will prevent a person from being rehabilitated under the 1974 Act. 
 I shall wait with interest to hear the Minister's explanation. It may be that I have not fully thought through the matter and that he will satisfy me that that is the correct approach to adopt, but it raised several important points. For example, it is worth remembering that the confiscation provisions under part 2 are not in themselves about the commission of a criminal offence, although they may be linked to it. It is possible for a person to have his assets confiscated under part 2 and, although he would have to have had previous convictions, they need not necessarily be related to the offence in question. Of course, the standard of proof for those confiscations is the balance of probabilities, and the burden of proof is reversed. 
 When there has been a failure to pay, there are—unless I have misunderstood the position, in which case the Minister will correct me—penalties under the Bill. Therefore, it is puzzling that the policy decision is to remove from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 those people under a confiscation order who fail to pay the amount due. Surely, the time for which a person is subject to the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and would have to declare his conviction should follow on from the convictional period of imprisonment that was imposed in lieu of payment. Why is a failure to pay a confiscation order subject, per se, to being entirely removed from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? 
 That is slightly mysterious, but perhaps the Minister has a cogent and reasonable explanation. 
 On a matter of principle, I believe that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is good legislation. It is a feature of the criminal justice system in this country that, while we may not succeed in reforming the people whom we convict and sometimes sentence to long periods of imprisonment, we certainly succeed in imposing stigmas on them. Those stigmas can subsequently make it very difficult for them to gain employment, even many years after the commission of the original offence and despite the community's belief that they have been rehabilitated. Why, therefore, should those who fail to comply with a confiscation order be exempt from the protection afforded by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? That is my understanding of the explanatory notes and the Bill, and I will be grateful if the Minister will explain the position.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has made some important points, with which I entirely agree. There is a further issue that I want the Minister to think about. The Committee will recall that in earlier sittings we talked about the fact that gangsterism is rife in Northern Ireland. All of us—especially the absent hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok—have been at pains to point out that the Mr. Bigs are the main target of the Bill. Mr. Bigs are as prevalent in Ulster as they are in Pollok. They are, sadly, the type of people who are involved with terrorist violence, as well as with the gangsterism at which the Bill is aimed.
 I want the Minister to think about whether provisions for the rehabilitation of offenders in Northern Ireland should be slightly different from those that affect the mainland. I agree that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has worked well on the mainland, but I am not convinced that it always works well in the Province of Ulster. Gangsterism is rife in Ulster, and I am worried about its connections with terrorism. Will the Minister address that point specifically? My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and I have always taken a big interest in issues that relate to Ulster. I hope that we shall receive some reassurance. For the sake of probing, the amendment would delete lines 17 to 30, and that would affect Northern Ireland provisions, too.

George Foulkes: On a general note, I wish to say that I agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about his approval of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That was a welcome Act. It was Labour legislation, too. It has been beneficial.
 The amendment would enable offenders who fail to pay their confiscation orders to take advantage of that Act, which applies to England and Wales, and Scotland. It would have the same effect in Northern Ireland where the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 applies. Others came to the same conclusion as I did when listening to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Perhaps I do not take as close an interest in the detail of Northern Ireland legislation as he and the hon. Member for Spelthorne 
 do, but I cannot see a policy justification for a difference between the jurisdictions on rehabilitation. 
 Confiscation legislation has always included a provision that prevents offenders who would otherwise be rehabilitated from becoming so if they fail to pay their confiscation orders. Such a policy is not new, but a continuation. The reason for the prohibition is straightforward. The recovery of the proceeds of crime is critical. There is another important point that I should stress. Unlike a confiscation order, the failure to pay a fine does not prevent an offender from being rehabilitated. However, there is a crucial difference between fines and confiscation orders. A confiscation order is based on the amount of property available for confiscation at the time that the order is made, and as such it can always be paid. A fine may, for example, take account of future earnings and different criteria may apply. 
 Offenders should be encouraged to repay their debt to society—a particularly apposite expression in the context of confiscation—and the provision will do precisely that. The new enforcement provisions are designed to speed up the enforcement. In most cases, we expect a confiscation order to have been met through restraint and receivership. The issue of rehabilitation should not really arise. The amendment would let offenders off the hook: something that I do not believe that Conservative Members would wish. 
 I ask Opposition Members to support Government amendment No. 516. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applies both to England and Wales and to Scotland. Accordingly, the restriction on rehabilitation should apply to Scottish confiscation orders under part 3 as well as to English confiscation orders under part 2. Similar provisions under the current legislation already apply to Scotland. I politely ask the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I thought that he would say that previous legislation had incorporated such a provision. The distinction that I sought and that we discussed at some length under part 2 is that confiscation was linked originally to the money identified as being derived from a particular offence. We are now in a different environment in which, given the balance of probabilities with a reverse burden of proof, we will be confiscating money from individuals who have a criminal lifestyle that is not necessarily linked to the particular offence. Although the proceeding is differentiated from the civil recovery proceedings, it has elements of a civil or administrative law remedy that does not give rise to a criminal conviction. That is what is such an interesting aspect, although I accept that defaulting payment may give rise to a criminal sanction.
 That is why I wondered whether this was an opportunity to revisit the issue. However, the Minister made a persuasive point that if the money is identified and available for payment, a refusal to pay seems extraordinary. In reality, that is unlikely to 
 occur, because the money would already have been seized. I suspect that the money would be available for the payment to be made.

George Foulkes: Alternatively, the money might be salted away overseas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want a person who salted a million quid overseas to be rehabilitated.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister makes a good point. For those reasons, I am content that the matter has been aired, and I shall withdraw the amendment. I am happy with the Government amendment, which extends the provisions to Scotland, although I suspect that the Committee expected that the provisions would be present in the first place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 516, in page 270, line 23, after '2', insert 'or 3'.—[Mr. Foulkes.]

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 343, in page 271, line 8, leave out from '3' to end of line 14 and insert—
'(courts of summary jurisdiction), after sub-paragraph (i) insert— 
 ''(j) proceedings under sections 294, 296, 297, [Victims] and 300 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2001''.'.

John McWilliam: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 651 to 654.

Bob Ainsworth: This group of amendments is intended to make civil public funding available for certain proceedings under the Bill. I mentioned most of them to the Committee during our deliberations in December.
 I shall begin with the main group relating to part 2. As members of the Committee know, the Bill transfers restraint, receivership and other High Court confiscation functions to the Crown court. These proceedings may affect both the defendant and a third party. They are currently classified as civil and automatically attract civil public funding on the standard conditions. 
 Criminal public funding is available to a defendant in the Crown court between the instigation and conclusion of proceedings. It is not available to third parties in the Crown court. Consequently, we must make civil public funding available to cover cases in which criminal public funding does not apply but in which the defendant and other parties may be affected by proceedings. We intend for the standard conditions to apply before funding is made available, as happens at present. 
 The meat is in amendment No. 654, which has three main effects on part 2. It will make civil public funding available to the defendant before proceedings have commenced. That is required because it will be possible to obtain a restraint order as soon as an investigation is under way. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Bob Ainsworth: The second effect of amendment No. 654 is to make civil public funding available to the recipient of a tainted gift. The third is to make such funding available to other third parties affected by restraint or receivership proceedings.
 We have spotted that compensation proceedings under clauses 72 and 73 have been transferred from the High Court to the Crown court. As a result, if a third party were, for example, to apply for compensation, criminal public funding would not be available, for reasons that I have already mentioned. Amendment No. 654 therefore also makes civil public funding available to cover applications for compensation. Amendment No. 343 makes equivalent provision for parties to cash forfeiture proceedings in Northern Ireland. 
 The recovery of cash scheme is set out in chapter 3 of part 5 and provides that such proceedings take place in the summary jurisdiction. We need to provide civil public funding in that criminal venue. In common with the amendments that relate to the confiscation proceedings, civil public funding will be made available to anyone who either makes an application to the magistrates court or becomes party to a connected hearing under the cash recovery scheme. Such parties could include the person from whom the cash was seized and a claimed owner of the cash. 
 In common with the confiscation scheme, the Bill prevents any person from drawing on detained cash for legal expenses once it has been seized. People will, of course, be required to meet the means and merits test before civil public funding is paid. The amendments are desirable. They provide a safety net for defendants, and I commend them to the Committee.

Nick Hawkins: I agree with the Minister, for once, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. The amendments are helpful, and as the Minister rightly says, they provide a safety net. It is important that legal aid is made available. Does the fact that the Bill did not originally specify that and now, helpfully, will, alter the compliance cost assessment that the Minister made? I appreciate that he may not be able to write to me today, but if he will undertake to write to me and other Committee members about any extra cost to public funds of the further legal aid provision, I need not detain him.

Bob Ainsworth: Our initial impression is that it does not, but we shall reflect on the matter, and if that is not true, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 661, in page 271, line 19, after '2' insert ', 3'. 
 No. 662, in page 271, line 20, at end insert— 
'Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45) 
 (1) The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 is amended as follows 
 (2) In section 86A(3) (application of Part VIIA) for ''sections 21(2) and 28(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995'' substitute ''section 21(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 and Part 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002'' 
 (3) In paragraph 8 of Schedule 2A (interpretation) for the definition of ''restraint order'' substitute— 
 ''restraint order means a restraint order made under Part 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002''.'.
 No. 601, in page 272, line 21, at end insert— 
'Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66) 
 11A. (1) The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 is amended as follows 
 (2) In section 5(4) (meaning of ''qualified creditor'') for the words from ''has the meaning'' to ''1995'' substitute ''means a confiscation order under Part 2, 3 or 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002''.' 
 (3) In section 7(1) (meaning of ''apparent insolvency'') for the words from ''has the meaning assigned'' where second occurring to ''said Act of 1994'' where second occurring substitute '' ''confiscation order'' and ''restraint order'' mean a confiscation order or a restraint order made under Part 2, 3 or 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002'' 
 (4) After section 31 (vesting of estate at date of sequestration) insert— 
 ''31A Property subject to restraint order 
 (1) This section applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the debtor's estate by virtue of section 405(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property subject to a restraint order), 
 (b) an order under section 50, 52, 129, 201 or 203 of that Act has not been made in respect of the property, and 
 (c) the restraint order is discharged. 
 (2) On the discharge of the restraint order the property vests in the permanent trustee as part of the debtor's estate. 
 (3) But subsection (2) does not apply to the proceeds of property realised by a management receiver under section 49(2)(d) or 200(2)(d) of that Act (realisation of property to meet receiver's remuneration and expenses). 
 31B Property in respect of which receivership or administration order is made 
 (1) This section applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the debtor's estate by virtue of section 405(2)(b), (d) or (e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which an order for the appointment of a receiver or administrator under certain provisions of that Act is in force), and 
 (b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 94 or 158 of that Act, 
 (c) the amount payable under the confiscation order is fully paid, and 
 (d) any of the property remains in the hands of the receiver or administrator (as the case may be). 
 (2) The property vests in the permanent trustee as part of the debtor's estate. 
 31C Property subject to certain orders where confiscation order discharged or quashed 
 (1) This section applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the debtor's estate by virtue of section 405(2)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which a restraint order or an order for the appointment of a receiver or administrator under that Act is in force), 
 (b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 94 or 158 of that Act, and 
 (c) the confiscation order is discharged under section 31, 116 or 183 of that Act (as the case may be) or quashed under that Act or in pursuance of any enactment relating to appeals against conviction or sentence. 
 (2) Any property in the hands of a receiver appointed under Part 2 or 4 of that Act or an administrator appointed under Part 3 of that Act vests in the permanent trustee as part of the debtor's estate. 
 (3) But subsection (2) does not apply to the proceeds of property realised by a management receiver under section 49(2)(d) or 200(2)(d) of that Act (realisation of property to meet receiver's remuneration and expenses).'' 
 (5) In section 55 (effect of discharge) after subsection (2) insert— 
 ''(2A) In subsection (2)(a) above the reference to a fine or other penalty due to the Crown includes a reference to a confiscation order made under Part 2, 3 or 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.''.'
 No. 590, in page 272, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert— 
'12 (1) The Insolvency Act 1986 is amended as follows 
 (2) In section 281 (effect of discharge) after subsection (4) insert— 
 ''(4A) In subsection (4) the reference to a fine includes a reference to a confiscation order under Part 2, 3 or 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.'' 
 (3) After section 306 insert— 
 ''306A Property subject to restraint order 
 (1) This section applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 402(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property subject to a restraint order), 
 (b) an order under section 50, 52, 129, 201 or 203 of that Act has not been made in respect of the property, and 
 (c) the restraint order is discharged. 
 (2) On the discharge of the restraint order the property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. 
 (3) But subsection (2) does not apply to the proceeds of property realised by a management receiver under section 49(2)(d) or 200(2)(d) of that Act (realisation of property to meet receiver's remuneration and expenses). 
 306B Property in respect of which receivership or administration order made 
 (1) This section applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 402(2)(b), (d) or (e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which an order for the appointment of a receiver or administrator under certain provisions of that Act is in force), 
 (b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 94 or 158 of that Act, 
 (c) the amount payable under the confiscation order is fully paid, and 
 (d) any of the property remains in the hands of the receiver or administrator (as the case may be). 
 (2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. 
 306C Property subject to certain orders where confiscation order discharged or quashed 
 (1) This section applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 402(2)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which a restraint order or an order for the appointment of a receiver or administrator under that Act is in force), 
 (b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 94 or 158 of that Act, and 
 (c) he confiscation order is discharged under section 31, 116 or 183 of that Act (as the case may be) or quashed under that Act or in pursuance of any enactment relating to appeals against conviction or sentence. 
 (2) Any such property in the hands of a receiver appointed under Part 2 or 4 of that Act or an administrator appointed under Part 3 of that Act vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. 
 (3) But subsection (2) does not apply to the proceeds of property realised by a management receiver under section 49(2)(d) or 200(2)(d) of that Act (realisation of property to meet receiver's remuneration and expenses).''.'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 442, in page 272, line 26, at end insert—
'Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (c. 47) 
 12A In Part I of Schedule 2 to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, in paragraph 1, at end add— 
 ''( ) under section 94 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the making of a confiscation order where representations are made to the court by someone other than the accused; 
 ( ) under section 101 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the disposal of the family home where representations are made to the court by someone other than the accused; 
 ( ) under section 136 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to action taken by the administrator where an application to the court has been made by a person specified in section 136(2) of that Act; 
 ( ) under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the detention of seized cash; 
 ( ) under section 297 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the forfeiture of cash detained under section 294 of that Act.''.'
 Just as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield welcomed the Minister's last amendment, I hope that the Minister will be prepared, even if he cannot accept it today, to say that this amendment may have some merit. Once again, we are discussing legal aid. 
 The basis for the amendment is a suggestion from the Law Society of Scotland. Hon. Members will remember that we had a large group of amendments many weeks ago from the Law Society of Scotland. It seems, and indeed it probably is, many weeks since I last mentioned that distinguished professional body. One of the reasons for that is that several of the other amendments that it sent us in the intervening weeks were never reached, because a guillotine, or knife, fell. Happily, however, we have reached this one. 
 The Law Society of Scotland told my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and me that although it welcomes the express provision for third parties to make representations to the court, if the rights given to third parties are to be meaningful, provision should be made to enable them to secure effective representation. The amendment would achieve that by altering the references to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. 
 I appreciate that the amendment may have cost implications. Perhaps when the Minister writes to me about the Government amendments, he could cover this amendment, too. We wanted to probe, because having read what the Law Society of Scotland said , we thought it sensible to explore the matter. 
 I have previously expressed reservations about whether it is a good idea for lots of third parties who were not originally part of the legal dispute to give their views to the court. However, that seems to be the trend that the Government have since 1997 moved in the direction of, giving increasingly more third parties the right to express a view to the court even though they are not parties to the dispute. If we are to move in that direction, however much I might have personal reservations about it, if people are to be represented they should have proper representation.

George Foulkes: I cannot accept the amendment, but I can say tantalisingly as we progress that I might be able to be a little kinder later.
 Part I of schedule 2 to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 details the various courts in Scotland and the United Kingdom in which civil legal aid is available. However, it does not specify particular proceedings for which civil legal aid is available. 
 The amendment would insert a number of detailed proceedings under the Bill into schedule 2 of the 1986 Act. It is unnecessary and inconsistent with schedule 2 of the 1986 Act. Assistance by way of representation—ABWOR—will be available for third parties who want to make representations about the making of a confiscation order under clause 94, as happens at present for proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995. 
 The other clauses referred to in the amendment—clauses 101, 136, 294 and 297—deal with civil procedures. In Scotland, except for a small number of proceedings, such as simplified divorce and small claims, legal aid is available for all civil proceedings in the sheriff court and the Court of Session. That will continue to be the case and legal aid will therefore be available for the proceedings covered by the amendment. Given that, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is tantalising me, and in light of what he said, I want to reach the amendments to which he is referring. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 664, in page 273, line 15, at end insert— 
'(aa) for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute— 
 ''(ii) any offence which by virtue of section 154 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a drug trafficking offence for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act; 
 (iia) any offence which by virtue of section 155 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a money laundering offence for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act;''.'
 No. 665, in page 273, line 34, at end insert— 
'(aa) for sub-paragraph (k) substitute— 
 ''(k) any offence which by virtue of section 154 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a drug trafficking offence for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act; 
 (ka) any offence which by virtue of section 155 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a money laundering offence for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act;''.'. 
No. 591, in page 274, leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert— 
'16 (1) The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 is amended as follows 
 (2) In Article 255 (effect of discharge) after paragraph (4) insert— 
 ''(4A) In paragraph (4) the reference to a fine includes a reference to a confiscation order under Part 2, 3 or 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.'' 
 (3) After Article 279 insert— 
 ''279A Property subject to restraint order 
 (1) This Article applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 408(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property subject to a restraint order), 
 (b) an order under section 50, 52, 129, 201 or 203 of that Act has not been made in respect of the property, and 
 (c) the restraint order is discharged. 
 (2) On the discharge of the restraint order the property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. 
 (3) But paragraph (2) does not apply to the proceeds of property realised by a management receiver under section 49(2)(d) or 200(2)(d) of that Act (realisation of property to meet receiver's remuneration and expenses). 
 279B Property in respect of which receivership or administration order made 
 (1) This Article applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 408(2)(b), (d) or (e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which an order for the appointment of a receiver or administrator under certain provisions of that Act is in force), 
 (b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 94 or 158 of that Act, 
 (c) the amount payable under the confiscation order is fully paid, and 
 (d) any of the property remains in the hands of the receiver or administrator (as the case may be). 
 (2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. 
 279C Property subject to certain orders where confiscation order discharged or quashed 
 (1) This Article applies where— 
 (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 408(2)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which a restraint order or an order for the appointment of a receiver or administrator under that Act is in force), 
 (b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 94 or 158 of that Act, and 
 (c) the confiscation order is discharged under section 31, 116 or 183 of that Act (as the case may be) or quashed under that Act or in pursuance of any enactment relating to appeals against conviction or sentence. 
 (2) Any such property in the hands of a receiver appointed under Part 2 or 4 of that Act or an administrator appointed under Part 3 of that Act vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. 
 (3) But paragraph (2) does not apply to the proceeds of property realised by a management receiver under section 49(2)(d) or 200(2)(d) of that Act (realisation of property to meet receiver's remuneration and expenses).''.'.
 No. 666, in page 274, line 37, after 'or' insert 
'the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987'. 
No. 667, in page 274, line 38, after '2' insert ', 3'. 
 No. 668, in page 274, line 39, at end insert— 
'Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c.31) 
 In section 139(12) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (search powers) in paragraph (b) of the definition of ''items subject to legal privilege'' for ''section 40 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987'' substitute ''section 397 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002''.'—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 648, in page 274, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 276.
 This is a probing amendment. The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 will be almost demolished by virtue of the Bill. All that will survive are sections 55 and 56, which concern investigations into drug trafficking, not the proceeds of drug trafficking. I highlight that for the Minister because it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The sooner the Government can remove those 
 provisions and put them somewhere else so that the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 dies a death, the better.

Bob Ainsworth: Without overburdening the Committee, I wish to pick up on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The powers to investigate under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 currently cover the investigation of the offence and the proceeds of drug trafficking. The provisions of the Bill that the amendment would delete preserve the powers in respect of investigations into the offence. However, the powers of investigation into the proceeds of crime provided under part 8 will cover and significantly extend the powers under the Drug Trafficking Act in respect of investigations into the benefit.
 The overlap of powers would lead to confusion and uncertainty for no good reason. There is no reason to have two separate sets of powers for investigating the proceeds of drug crime. With regard to the investigation itself, it will only be necessary to preserve the Act inasmuch as it relates to offences of drug trafficking and the related powers to investigate such offences. Confiscation, cash recovery, money laundering and investigating powers in relation to benefit from drug trafficking have been consolidated into the Bill. 
 We cannot cover the offence itself, because that would extend the scope of the Bill. The issue must be addressed, and we will seek to rid ourselves of the Act in its entirety, in the most appropriate way.

Dominic Grieve: I just wanted to highlight that unfortunate state of affairs. The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 should not be allowed to survive in this ghostlike form. It has little purpose left. The sooner its remaining powers are removed to somewhere else, the better. Unfortunately, the statute book is littered with examples of remnant legislation. That is especially the case in the criminal law. We talk about the need to simplify the criminal law, but that is not helped when this sort of situation arises.
 However, I accept the Minister's explanation that he can do nothing about it in this legislation, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 669, in page 276, line 25, at end insert— 
'Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 43) 
 (1) The Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 is amended as follows 
 (2) The following provisions in the Act shall cease to have effect— 
 (a) Part I, except section 2(7); 
 (b) in section 28, subsections (1)(a) and (2) and in subsection (5) the words ''(including a restraint order made under and within the meaning of the 1994 Act)''; 
 (c) section 29; 
 (d) in section 31, subsection (2) and in subsection (4) the words ''or (2)''; 
 (e) sections 35 to 39; 
 (f) in section 40, subsections (1)(a), (2) and (4); 
 (g) in section 42, subsections (1)(a) and (b); 
 (h) in section 43, in subsection (1) the words '', confiscation order'' and subsection (2); 
 (i) in section 45, subsection (1)(a); 
 (j) section 47; 
 (k) in section 49, in subsection (1) the definitions of ''the 1988 Act'', ''the 1994 Act'' and ''confiscation order'' and subsection (4); 
 (3) The following provisions in Schedule 1 to the Act shall cease to have effect— 
 (a) in paragraph 1(1)(b) the words ''or a confiscation order'', in paragraph 1(2)(a) the words ''subject to paragraph (b) below'', paragraph 1(2)(b) and in paragraph 1(3)(a)(i) the words ''or confiscation order''; 
 (b) in paragraph 2(1)(a) the words '', and if appointed (or empowered) under paragraph 1(1)(b) above where a confiscation order has been made''; 
 (c) paragraph 4; 
 (d) in paragraph 5(1) the words ''Part I of''; 
 (e) in paragraph 8(2) the words '', unless in a case where a confiscation order has been made there are sums available to be applied in payment of it under paragraph 4(4)(b) above,''; 
 (f) in paragraph 10(1) the words ''or the recipient of a gift caught by Part I of this Act or an implicative gift'' and paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3); 
 (g) in paragraph 12(1)(a) the words ''paragraph (a) or (b) of section 4(1) or''; 
 (4) The following provisions in Schedule 2 to the Act shall cease to have effect— 
 (a) in paragraph 1(2) the words ''and 35 to 38''; 
 (b) in paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (1) the words ''realisable or'', in sub-paragraph (2) the words ''and 35 to 38'', sub-paragraph (5). 
 (c) in paragraph 3(2) the words ''and 35 to 38'' and paragraphs 3(4) and (5); 
 (d) in paragraph 4(2) the words ''and 35 to 38''; 
 (e) paragraph 6(2)(a). 
 (5) In section 28(9) (restraint orders) for ''Subsections (2)(a) and'' substitute ''Subsection'' 
 (6) In section 42 (enforcement) in subsections (2)(a), (c) and (d) for ''Part I,'' substitute ''Part'' 
 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46) 
 (1) The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is amended as follows 
 (2) In section 109(1) (intimation of appeal) for ''section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 (postponed confiscation orders)'' substitute ''section 102 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (postponement)'' 
 (3) In section 205B(5) (minimum sentence for third drug trafficking offence) for the definition of ''drug trafficking offence'' substitute— 
 '' ''drug trafficking offence'' means an offence which by virtue of section 88, 154 or 239 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a drug trafficking offence for the purposes of Part 2, 3 or 4 of that Act;'' 
 (4) In section 219(8)(b) (fines: imprisonment for non-payment) for ''14(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995'' substitute ''120(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002''.'
 No. 670, in page 279, line 16, at end insert— 
'Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 48) 
 The following provisions of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 shall cease to have effect— 
 (a) section 15(3), 
 (b) in Schedule 1, paragraph 20. 
 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) 
 In Schedule 8 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 paragraphs 115 and 116 shall cease to have effect.'
 No. 651, in page 279, line 18, leave out 'In'. 
 No. 652, in page 279, line 19, leave out from 'Service)' to end of line. 
 No. 653, in page 279, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert— 
'(2) In paragraph 2(2), after paragraph (d) insert ''or 
 (e) under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to the extent specified in paragraph 3,''and omit the ''or'' at the end of paragraph (c).'.
 No. 654, in page 279, line 30, at end insert— 
'(4) After paragraph 2 insert— 
 ''3 (1) These are the proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002— 
 (a) an application under section 43(3) to vary or discharge a restraint order or an order under section 42(7); 
 (b) proceedings which relate to a direction under section 54(3) or 56(3) as to the distribution of funds in the hands of a receiver; 
 (c) an application under section 62 relating to action taken or proposed to be taken by a receiver; 
 (d) an application under section 63 to vary or discharge an order under any of sections 48 to 53 for the appointment of or conferring powers on a receiver; 
 (e) an application under section 72 or 73 for the payment of compensation; 
 (f) proceedings which relate to an order under section 297 for the forfeiture of cash; 
 (g) an application under section 340(3), 351(3), 358(3) or 364(3) to vary or discharge certain orders made under Part 8. 
 (2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not authorise the funding of the provision of services to a defendant (within the meaning of Part 1 of that Act) in relation to— 
 (a) proceedings mentioned in paragraph (b); 
 (b) an application under section 73 for the payment of compensation if the confiscation order was varied under section 30.''.'.
 No. 671, in page 279, line 35, after '1994,' insert, 
'the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 or'.
 No. 672, in page 279, line 36, after '88' insert 'or 154'. 
 No. 673, in page 279, line 37, after '2' insert 'or 3'. 
 No. 674, in page 280, line 21, after '1988' insert— 
', Part I of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995'.
 No. 675, in page 280, line 22, after '2' insert 'or 3'. 
 No. 676, in page 281, line 6, after '2' insert 'or 3'. 
 No. 677, in page 281, line 27, after 'privilege'')' insert '— 
(a) in subsection (1)(b) for the words ''33 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.39)'' substitute ''397 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002''; 
 (b)'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
 Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 439 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 - Repeals and revocations

George Foulkes: I beg to move amendment No. 678, in page 282, line 38, column 2, at end insert—
'Section 14. In Schedule 4, paragraph 1.'.

John McWilliam: With this we may consider the
 following amendments: No. 440, in page 283, line 27, at end insert—
'Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 39), Part V'.
 Government amendments Nos. 679 and 680. 
 Amendment. No. 441 in page 283, line 30, at end insert— 
'Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 43), Parts I, III, IV, V, Schedules 1 and 2'.
 Government amendments Nos. 681 to 683.

George Foulkes: The purpose of this group of amendments is to repeal provisions in existing legislation that are made redundant by the provisions of the Bill.
 I am happy to say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and his colleagues that the Government will accept amendment No. 440, without their having to speak to it.

Bob Ainsworth: And if they do, we won't.

George Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right: we will accept that amendment only on condition that they do not speak to it.

David Wilshire: Will that principle apply if we do not speak to the other amendments?

George Foulkes: That is an enticing offer, and we shall carefully consider it.
 Amendment No. 440 will repeal part V of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, which makes provision for production orders in respect of drugs investigations, and sets out money laundering offences. They will be redundant, as they will be replaced by parts 7 and 8 of the Bill. 
 However, I cannot accept amendment No. 441.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister cannot accept it because Government amendment No. 680 deals with the same point. I have correctly anticipated him on that, and in that regard I can be as generous to him as he has been to me.

George Foulkes: Goodness me. I would like the Committee to continue for another 39 sittings if the proceedings were to be carried on in this manner. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman will not press amendment No. 441 to a vote.
 The other Government amendments repeal provisions that the Bill will make redundant. As this is the final sitting, while speaking to the amendments, I also wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He has shouldered more than his fair share of the great burden of steering the Bill through the Committee. He has done a splendid job. I hope that that does not sound patronising, but I am a little older than him, and I have been a Member of Parliament for longer than him, so perhaps I am allowed to sound a bit patronising. I have sat on many Committees, and I have never witnessed a Minister pilot a Bill with such skill and good humour, and in such an efficient and effective way.

Nick Hawkins: I reassure the Minister that I shall not speak to amendment No. 440, as he has kindly
 accepted it. I accept his reason for not accepting amendment No. 441. I must put it on the record that once again we are indebted to the Law Society of Scotland. I understand that Government amendment No. 680 deals with the same point as amendment No. 441, but goes further.
 We have had a couple of Grieve amendments and at least one Hawkins amendment. We welcome the Minister's generosity and echo his tributes to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I used to live in the neighbouring constituency, so I should remember the parliamentary boundaries in Coventry. I did not wish to mention this earlier for fear of being accused by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok of being another cattle rustler, but my grandmother came from Scotland. She was an Ogilvie from Dundee. Perhaps this could be the Ogilvie amendment. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming— 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 679, in page 283, line 27, at end insert— 
'Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 40) 
 In Schedule 3, paragraphs 4(2) and 69.'.
 No. 440, in page 283, line 27, at end insert— 
'Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 39), Part V'. 
No. 680, in page 283, line 30, at end insert— 
'Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 43) 
 Part I, except section 2(7). 
 In section 28, subsections (1)(a) and (2) and in subsection (5) the words ''(including a restraint order made under and within the meaning of the 1994 Act)''. 
 Section 29. In section 31, subsection (2), in subsection (4) the words ''or (2)''. 
 Sections 35 to 39. In section 40, subsections (1)(a), (2) and (4). 
 In section 42, subsections (1)(a) and (b). 
 In section 43, in subsection (1) the words ''confiscation order'', subsection (2). 
 Section 45(1)(a). 
 Section 47. In section 49, in subsection (1) the definitions of ''the 1988 Act'', ''the 1994 Act'' and ''confiscation order'' and subsection (4). 
 In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph (1)(b) the words ''or a confiscation order'', in sub-paragraph (2)(a) the words ''subject to paragraph (b) below'', sub-paragraph (2)(b), in 
sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) the words ''or confiscation order''. 
 In Schedule 1, in paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (1)(a) the words '', and if appointed (or empowered) under paragraph 1(1)(b) above where a confiscation order has been made'', paragraph 4, in paragraph 5(1) the words ''Part I of'', in paragraph 8(2) the words from '', unless in a case where a confiscation order has been'' to ''4(4)(b) above,''. 
 In Schedule 1, in paragraph 10(1) the words ''or the recipient of a gift caught by Part I of this Act or an implicative gift'', paragraphs 10(2) and (3), in paragraph 12(1)(a) the words ''paragraph (a) or (b) of section 4(1) or''. 
 In Schedule 2, in paragraph 1(2) the words ''and 35 to 38'', in paragraph 2(1) the words ''realisable or'', in paragraph 2(2) the words ''and 35 to 38'', paragraph 2(5), in paragraph 3(2) the words ''and 35 to 38'', paragraphs 3(4) and (5), in paragraph 4(2) the words ''and 35 to 38'', paragraph 6(2)(a).'.
 No. 681, in page 284, line 14, at end insert— 
'Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 48) 
 Section 15(3). 
 In Schedule 1, paragraph 20.'.
 No. 682, in page 284, line 15, at end insert— 
'In Schedule 1, paragraphs 115 and 116.'.
 No. 683, in page 284, line 26, leave out 'and 10' and insert— 
', 10 and 11(2)'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
 Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 440 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 441 - Orders and regulations

Dominic Grieve: I do not have time to move amendment No. 649, in page 254, line 12, leave out subsection (4) to (6) and insert—
'(4) No order (other than one falling to be made by a court) or regulations under this Act may be made— 
 (a) by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the order or regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House; 
 (b) by the Scottish Ministers unless a draft of the order or regulations has been laid before the approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.'.

John McWilliam: With this, none the less, we may consider Government amendments Nos. 655 and 656.

Dominic Grieve: This is the valedictory moment of the last amendment that I proposed to move. However, there is not time to discuss it, so I shall explain it briefly.
 It would substitute the provision in subsection (4) that limits the affirmative resolution to five orders 
 under the Bill, and would extend the affirmative resolution to every order under the Bill that may be made by the Secretary of State or by Order in Council. That blanket approach would have allowed a discussion to take place, although that will not be possible during the time available. However, I tell the Committee that many powers—some of which we have examined today—will be dealt with by negative resolution. That troubles me. 
 Last night, I looked through the Bill in its entirety to pick out the powers. I noted that customer information, which is an important part of clause 353, will be dealt with by negative resolution, as will powers in clauses 428, 429, 430, 435 and 436. Some important powers, such as the application to Crown servants, are in clause 435, and I am worried that orders under clauses 429 and 430 will not be dealt with by affirmative resolution. They are important when considering powers for external requests, orders and investigations. As I told the Minister, the House should be able to consider carefully when such orders are made. 
 There are other provisions for which I accept that a negative resolution order may be appropriate. However, I hope that the Minister will examine the matter. I shall attempt to return to it on Report and identify specific orders for which the affirmative resolution method would be better. However, I am grateful that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used for the important five powers that he identified. 
 Time is very short. I thank the officers and staff of the Departments and the Officers of the House for the help that they have given us. I also thank you, Mr. McWilliam, along with Mr. Gale and Mr. O'Brien, for chairing our proceedings and for keeping us merry and happy during most of the time. [Interruption.] I fear that I am being cut short, and I should leave some time for the Minister to say something. 
 I must thank the Minister—I cannot thank all members of the Committee individually. He has been worth waiting for. He was a Whip for many years and we heard nothing from him. His assiduity would take some beating. He has facilitated matters greatly.

John McWilliam: We have a problem: the Division Bell has beaten us again. In advance, I say thank you very much on behalf of my two colleagues and myself for the hon. Gentleman's kind words. Other hon. Members will not get the opportunity to say their thanks, so I shall do that now. I thank the Clerks, Hansard—including the Committee Reporters, whom hon. Members do not see—the police, the Doorkeepers, and all hon. Members for being such a great Committee.
 I regret that after we return, it will be, ''bang!''—finish. There is nothing that I can do about that. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming— 
 It being after Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [30 October 2001] and the Orders of the Committee [22 and 29 January 2002] to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Amendments made: No. 655, in page 254, line 21, after 'section' insert '292(4),'. 
 No. 656, in page 254, line 28, after 'section' insert '292(4), or'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.] 
 Clause 441, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 442 to 444 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at nine minutes past Seven o'clock.